Cooling tower of the unfinished Chernobyl reactors 5 and 6. Photo by Timm Suess, Flickr

Cooling tower of the unfinished Chernobyl reactors 5 and 6. Photo by Timm Suess, Flickr

The disaster in Japan, which threatens to worsen as the country’s officials struggle to contain what is being called the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl meltdown 25 years ago, is having repercussions on nuclear policy worldwide.

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a three-month moratorium on extending the operation periods for its nuclear power plants, which account for 23 percent of the nation’s power. Under the moratorium, seven plants that began operating before 1980 will be shut down, leaving 10 plants still operational. The move is a reversal for Merkel, who last year made the controversial decision to keep the plants running until the mid-2030s.

Switzerland also suspended its nuclear plans pending a safety review, and the European Union called for an emergency meeting of energy ministers Tuesday to assess, among other points, the idea of running stress tests on the EU’s 143 nuclear plants.

But other world leaders, while calling for caution and analysis, were less quick to halt their own nuclear energy plans. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who initially indicated that he would not back away from nuclear power, called for a domestic “analysis of the current condition of the atomic sector and an analysis of the plans for future development” Tuesday. France, meanwhile, promised safety checks on its 58 nuclear reactors. But, at a gathering of G8 powers, Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said, “to say to the French that we are going to give up nuclear power would be lying.”

India has so far refused to reconsider its plans to ramp up its nuclear power generating capability, but its environment minister said that “additional safeguards” would be considered. India’s planned expansion would more than quadruple its nuclear power capacity by 2020.

In the United States, which has 104 reactors nationwide and is the No. 1 consumer of nuclear power in the world, President Barack Obama’s plans to guarantee federal loans for the construction of new reactors will face additional scrutiny. Southern Company, which has already been promised $8 billion in one of those federal loans, plans to build two reactors near Augusta, Ga., by 2017. The reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant would be the first ones built in the United States since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. And while Southern says its $14 billion project remains on track, the company got a lot of questions from state officials this week — and the project is sure to be part of the debate over how nations assess the safety of nuclear energy going forward.

Comments

  1. Janna
    Louisiana
    March 15, 2011, 5:04 pm

    Why does the government think they can just do what they want to this earth? We only get one! If something happens to one of those nuclear power plants then it’s going to be like a chain reaction to devastation. Money doesn’t matter that much, because it will all burn and mean nothing. Then we will actually have to learn how to communicate and work together with the people around us to survive. We are all the same .”Ranking” doesn’t mean anything we all wake up the same and experience the same sunset. The people that think they are so high up just because they have money and make decisions for this country as a whole, need to start actually listening to the people of this country. Or better yet listen to the higher spirit that gave us this earth to live on and start appreciating it as home because we only get this one planet. Lets please stop destroying it and learn to become a whole, that’s the only way “we” will make it to the next level.

    • Susanna Murley
      March 15, 2011, 5:17 pm

      I see what you’re saying, but we also need to produce power to cool down our homes. As the climate gets warmer we’re going to need to use MORE energy to cool down our homes because we’re producing so much power from fossil fuels like coal…ironic isn’t it? These are the challenges we’re examining here on this blog and thanks for your comment!

  2. Wombat
    Australia
    March 16, 2011, 9:19 am

    Susanna you are very badly misinformed. The climate is not getting warmer anywhere and there is no man made climate change. Could you try to inform yourself rather than believe in this hoax?

  3. Wombat
    Australia
    March 16, 2011, 9:21 am

    Janna, if the world consisted of more people like yourself we would not be facing these disasters. It is always greed that lurks behind these things. The death of a humane society has already occurred.

  4. Smitty
    US
    March 17, 2011, 11:52 am

    Disasters aside, I find it ironic that coal power plants actually produce up to 100 times more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant producing the same amount of energy.

    That’s not the main concern it seems though, the concern is what if there is another disaster, such as chernobyl or TMI.

    As far as building new Nuclear power plants goes, we’re talking about over 40 years of technology and material advancement, compared to the older plants still in service. Computer simulators will process worst case scenario situations, and multiple levels of backups will be designed for cooling systems. The current situation in Japan will only add to the level of regulations required.

    All things considered, this plant stood up to an earthquake several times more powerful than it was designed to withstand. It wasn’t until the tsunami flooded their generators that things got bad. If those generators kept going (which could be as simple as designing an air intake and exhaust stack and seal the generators inside a concrete structure similar to the cores themselves to prevent external forces from affecting their operation), I very much doubt there would be any issue today.

    I believe there is very little cause for real concern when it comes to building new nuclear technology. If your goals are for environmental reasons, perhaps a step away from fossil fuels should rank higher on the priority list.

  5. JR
    March 18, 2011, 2:28 pm

    Susanna Murley, EPA propaganda carries about as much weight as the pig bear man. I agree about climate change.. but in the sense there’s not a damn thing man can do about.. its ebb and flow. fix your ignorance and stop being fear mongered.

    • Susanna Murley
      March 18, 2011, 3:34 pm

      Ok, you don’t like the EPA, even though they have done critical work protecting human health from toxic pollution. How about NOAA? Here’s a handy fact sheet you could educate yourself with! Hope this helps…

  6. arun
    denton, TX
    March 19, 2011, 12:39 pm

    The nuclear technology can truly provide the energy needed by the growing human population. But in instances like the current disaster in japan we are forced to rethink. Understand the technical background and the following details in my blog. I am scientist but I have tried to give a simplified picture.
    Final outcomes possible in Fukushima nuclear plant: http://arundevarajlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/final-outcomes-possible-in-fukushima.html

    My resentment towards information hiding and distortion by govt agencies and media during the man made disasters : http://arundevarajlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-transperency-or-secret-operation.html

    Worst possible scenarios in fukushima reactors: http://arundevarajlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/worst-possible-scenarios-in-fukushima.html